All posts tagged Supreme Court Nomination

Judge Robert Bork, shown in 1987, was the subject of a partisan fight over his nomination to the Supreme Court.

The death of former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork drew plenty of attention, but not from most of those with whom he would have served.

Seven of the nine current justices didn’t issue public statements after Mr. Bork’s death was announced Wednesday morning. The two who did—Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg—both served with Mr. Bork on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Also not commenting was Solicitor . . . . . Read More »

FILE – In this Sept. 15, 1987 file photo, Judge Robert Bork, nominated by President Reagan to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court, is sworn before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill at his confirmation hearing. Robert Bork, whose failed Supreme Court nomination made history, has died. (AP Photo/John Duricka)

Robert Bork, the famed judge who will likely always be remembered first for the bruising 1987 confirmation battle over his Supreme Court nomination, died early Wednesday. He was 85. The cause was heart complications.

By the time Judge Bork’s name became nationally known, after President Ronald Reagan nominated him to replace Justice Lewis Powell in the summer of ’87, Mr. Bork had already created quite a resume. He had served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for five years. Under President Richard Nixon, he had served as Solicitor General for over three years.

Soon after his nomination failed in the fall of 1987. . . . . Read More »

The ink is barely dry on Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’s resignation letter to President Obama, but already the White House has made some determinations in regard to who his replacement might be.

According to this AP story, the president has no intention of nominating Hillary Rodham Clinton, his current Secretary of State. Repeat: Hillary Clinton will not be the next Supreme Court justice.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday that Obama has no intention of changing Clinton’s job title.

Said Gibbs: “The president is going to keep her as his secretary of state.”

But the AP is also reporting that Ninth Circuit judge Sidney Thomas (pictured) is under consideration, one of about 10 people reportedly on Obama’s not-yet-so-short list.

Kashmir Hill over at Above the Law is right, in our opinion: You could have spent all weekend reading coverage of John Paul Stevens’s retirement without reading too much all that new or inspired.

But we liked Adam Liptak’s Saturday piece in the NYT. Much, Liptak writes, has been made of the fact that Justice Stevens is the lone Protestant on the court. (The court is otherwise comprised of six Catholics and two Jews.)

To what degree, however, is that important in this day and age? To what degree should President Obama factor that into his thinking when mulling his selection?

The truth, Liptak reports, is that our culture these days prioritizes different types of diversity over religious diversity. “The practical reality of life in America is that religion plays much less of a role in everyday life than it did 50 or 100 years ago,” said University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone, to the NYT.

When President Obama announces his choice to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, we won’t be entirely surprised to read about attacks from the right — concerns about abortion, “judicial activism,” and the like. As there was with Obama’s first pick — Sonia Sotomayor — there will be controversy.

But for now, at least judging from the tenor displayed Sunday on the talk-show circuit, Senate Republicans don’t seem all that revved up, all that eager to come out swinging. Perhaps we’re misinterpreting their remarks Sunday, but they seem to be signaling that they might be okay with any of the five names getting mentioned most prominently — Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Seventh Circuit judge Diane Wood, D.C. Circuit judge Merrick Garland, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm. Click here for the WSJ story on the Senators’ Sunday remarks.

When asked on “This Week” if any of those five possible nominees seemed overly ideological, Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) said he thought they were all “nominally qualified.”

Others who spoke on the topic Sunday didn’t rule out the possibility of a filibuster, but certainly didn’t appear to think one was . . . Read More »

About Law Blog

The Law Blog covers the legal arena’s hot cases, emerging trends and big personalities. It’s brought to you by lead writer Jacob Gershman with contributions from across The Wall Street Journal’s staff. Jacob comes here after more than half a decade covering the bare-knuckle politics of New York State. His inside-the-room reporting left him steeped in legal and regulatory issues that continue to grab headlines.

Must Reads

Plaintiffs' lawyers dodged a bullet last year when the U.S. Supreme Court spared a quarter-century-old precedent that had served as the legal linchpin of the modern investor class-action case. Despite that win, a new report suggests that securities class actions have lost some of their firepower.

In a week in which images of Prophet Muhammad were connected to acts of terror and defiant expressions of freedom, a sculpture of the prophet of Islam inside the U.S. Supreme Court has drawn little notice.

Alan Dershowitz has vowed to slap a defamation suit against the two lawyers who claimed in a court document that Florida financier Jeffrey Epstein arranged sexual liaisons for him with an underage prostitute. Those lawyers have beaten him to the punch.

The salacious allegations against Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz that surfaced in a federal lawsuit involving convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have generated international attention. Drawing less coverage is the lawsuit itself -- a case with the potential to expand the rights of crime victims during federal investigations.